| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rich Shepard <rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lookup tables |
| Date: | 2025-02-04 15:18:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZxDUwyxrcB8Br0XDTUuy_zPi_CNF+sQorGoM=z4Hwndg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-support pgsql-general |
On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, Rich Shepard <rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> The point of a lookup table is to provide a unique list of authoritative
>> values for some purpose. Kinda like an enum. But having the label serve as
>> the unique value is reasonable - we only add surrogates for optimization.
>>
>
> David,
>
> The industrytypes table has 26 rows, the statustypes table has 8 rows. Your
> explanation suggests that for this database adding a PK to each table adds
> little, if anything.
>
It’s the FK side where the cost savings are experienced.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-02-04 15:19:34 | Re: Lookup tables |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-02-04 15:12:33 | Re: Lookup tables |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-02-04 15:19:34 | Re: Lookup tables |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2025-02-04 15:12:33 | Re: Lookup tables |